Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Channabasappa Lingappa Mokhashi, S/o. Late Lingappa Mokhashi – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
The petitioner is before this court calling in question an endorsement/order dated 29-07-2021 passed by the 1st respondent/Karnataka State Bar Council (‘the Council’ for short) by which re-entry of the petitioner into the rolls of the Council as an Advocate is denied.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri G. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Sans unnecessary details, the facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner enrolls as an Advocate with the then Mysore Bar Council on 17-07-1973; continues his practice till the onset of COVID-19. Due to onset of COVID-19, since there were restrictions, he comes to conclude that he would not be in a position to continue his practice. Therefore, he surrenders his ‘sanad’ and takes benefits that were available to the Advocate who surrenders their sanad from the Karnataka Advocates’ Welfare Fund under the Karnataka Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1983 (‘the Act’ for short). COVID-19 moves away. Normalcy is restored in the practice. The petitioner on realizing that
Voluntary surrender of sanad does not extinguish the right to resume practice, as the right to practice law is constitutionally protected.
An advocate's surrender of sanad can be withdrawn, and refusal to reinstate registration without clear statutory authority is unconstitutional, impairing the fundamental right to practice law.
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
The legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits, and ....
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
Restoration to the Roll of Advocates requires clear evidence of genuine repentance and rehabilitation, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
